Raised in a nominally Anglican home on the West coast of Canada at a time when all North Americans were ‘Christians,’ I gave Christ my life at fifteen thanks to Campus Crusade for Christ and an Anabaptist Mennonite community. My early faith was shaped by that rich heritage, and the ensuing years, lived in various locations, saw me seeking out any vibrant evangelical community passionate about being true to the word and the Lord – Brethren, Alliance, Independent, Pentecostal, Baptist, Nazarene. Raised without denominational allegiance, I have yet to hold any.
My faith journey has been typical with its seasons of two steps forward, one step back. It has also been challenged seriously enough for me to consider its renunciation. Yet here I am. God is surprised by neither our questions nor our doubts, and if He is insufficient to reasonably meet them, why follow Him? Interestingly, the challenges and resultant growth have come predominantly through issues involving theodicy.
My recently completed MA (Christian Apologetics) was done at an American university, and I was there reminded of the immense impact one’s culture can have on their theology. At this point in my journey, my views are more aligned with those of British orthodox evangelical thinkers, and “when I grow up” I would love the opportunity to live and study there.
I spend my days teaching in a multi-denominational Christian school community founded half a century ago by members of a Reformed church. The staff hold to a wide spectrum of Christian beliefs, the richness of which I consider one of the greatest strengths of our community. We have a lot to give one another; we learn a lot from one other.
I attempt to understand Christianity within the context of Second Temple Judaism through about the fourth century (pre-Augustine). My unrelenting curiosity and passion for learning (coupled with my ‘rouge’ tendencies!) mean I seek truth wherever it can be found. All truth is God’s truth. Scripture and the early creeds of the orthodox Christian faith comprise the immovable elements of my faith and thinking.
My hope is to learn and grow as we exchange ideas, clarify, and sharpen one another’s thinking through the days ahead. No one knows it all. There is always more to discover; we are all in process. Questions are good, and exploring them in community even better. May we all hold an open hand as we ever pursue more of the One who Is Truth with humility and grace.
Welcome.
Great perspective.
Inspiring words and background. I would love to have a few minutes of your time for feedback on the theodicy I’ve developed. It is not theological, but I consider it to be more visceral to the nature of life.
Roman Dawes
http://www.the-problem-of-evil.com
Roman
As you note, your theodicy is not theological. But theodicy, by definition, is theological. Therefore, before even engaging with your ideas, the first and bigger issue is “Does God Exist?”
On your site you posit “a complete resolution to the problem of evil,” but without God, there is no problem of evil. In fact, there is no evil. Life just is what it is. Tada! Evil solved…by saying there is no evil.
So it is quite a circular argument. Without God, there is no problem of evil, no theodicy (by definition) and no theodical work to be done.
But thanks for dropping by!
Thanks much for the reply.
You may have misunderstood what I meant by the fact that my argument is not theological. I meant that I don’t base my argument on Christian doctrine or scriptures. There have been many philosophical arguments to address theodicy, Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga’s free will defense providing one of the most famous, of recent.
At the core of reconciling the goodness of God with evil and suffering is explaining why God does not (always) intervene when they happen. Even those who think they know why bad things happen or assume they happen for good reasons are making an argument for a lack of divine intervention in the world to address innocent suffering or untimely death. Using a philosophical rather than a theological argument to explain that absence is most certainly not a circular argument starting from the premise that God does not exist. We’re all trying to understand someone’s divine justice, after all: God’s.
My resolution is a naturalist – not atheist – explanation of why the habits compelled by our mortal vulnerabilities are essential to the fabric of life. Similarly, explaining how a flower grows from a seed scientifically rather than theologically is not premised on the non-existence of God.
And my resolution is complete, because it answers the of evil in the logical, evidentiary, natural and moral aspects. The P.O.E. is dead. I’d invite you to read further should you find the time.